GADHAVAJHALA SATYANARAYANAMURTHI Vs. RAO SAHEB Y.NARAYANAMURTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He was the Head Clerk in the Taylor High School, Narasapur. He was suspended by the management of the Institution on 12 -10 -1943 and was ultimately dismissed from service on 19 -11 -1913. He instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises, for a declaration that the orders of suspension and dismissal were ultra vires and void and that he continued to be an employee of the Taylor High School, Narasapur, and for an injunction directing the defendants to allow him to work in his post in the school. The suit was contested by the management on various grounds. They maintained that the dismissal was justified and was proper, that the plaintiff's only remedy if he was aggrieved by the decision of the Executive Committee was to have preferred an appeal to the General Committee under Rule 9 of the Rules framed by the General Committee under Clause 25 of the scheme framed by the Court in O. S.No. 19 of 1922 on the file of the Sub Court, Narasapar, and that, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. The trial Court found practically on almost all the points against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge found that the order of dismissal was wrongful, as them was no proper enquiry by the Committee, that the procedure adopted by them was not proper and that the rule of natural justice that a man should not be condemned without giving him an opportunity to prove his innocence was not observed. He however dismissed the suit on the sole ground that Rule 9 excluded the jurisdiction of the civil Court from entertaining the suit and that the remedy of the appellant was to have preferred an appeal to the General Committee under Rule 9.

(2.) IN this second appeal the entire ground was covered by the learned advocate appearing on both sides. In the first place the respondent's advocate attempted to argue that the finding of the learned Judge that the dismissal of the plaintiff was wrongful was not justified. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was a permanent employee of the Institution and that his tenure of office was not terminable at pleasure. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that no opportunity was given to the appellant to establish his innocence, and that the committee were not prepared to accept the explanation offered by the plaintiff in answer to the charges framed against him. He also found that the charges of bribery levelled against the appellant were not proved and that the appellant was not given an opportunity to show that charges 1 and 4 were not true. On these findings the conclusion is irresistible that the dismissal of the plaintiff from service was wrongful and cannot be upheld.

(3.) THE jurisdiction of the civil Court under Section 9. Civil P. C., can be barred either expressly or by implication. The decisions referred to in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge for the view that the jurisdiction of the civil Courts is excluded by Rule 9, in my opinion, have no relevancy.In R. Venkata Rao v. Secretary of State, I. L. R. (1937) Mad. 532 (P. C.) the tenure was a tenure at pleasure, and it was held by the Privy Council that the only remedy of the aggrieved person was to have followed the procedure laid down by the rules, and that even if those rules were not observed the dismissed person had no right of action. In the other decision in Ramanatha Gurukkal v. Arunachalam Chettiar, 1938 -2 Mad. L. Jour 516 which was affirmed on Letters Patent Appeal in Ramanatha Gurukkal v. Aruna -chalam Chettiar, 1940 -1 Mad. L. Jour 352 the jurisdiction was impliedly barred by the statutory provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The legislature is entitled to enact provisions depriving the civil Court of its ordinary jurisdiction It cannot be said that a Committee or a General Committe like the General Committee of the Taylor High Sohool. Narasapur, stands in the same position as the legislature of the Province. The decision in Sasala Raminaidu v. Secretary of State, 1941 -2 Mad. L. Jour 577 is also of no assistance as the provisions therein considered were also statutory provisions.